U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-14-2019, 12:45 PM
 
6,657 posts, read 6,831,541 times
Reputation: 10046

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I use 90% lean ground beef and like it or not fat makes things taste good. I can't imagine having meat so lean in chili that there is zero fat. I'm thin and have low cholesterol, if I had a problem with either I would probably go out of my way to avoid fat but even then it would be tough. I grew up in a French Basque household where the philosophy was that a little butter or lard made everything better =)

Not to mention that carbs plus fat have a more deleterious effect on blood lipids than fat alone. Of course, people vary, but for myself, cutting the carbs resulted in a 70 point drop in cholesterol, with major improvements in ratios.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-14-2019, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,081 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
I did acknowledge that 20% of deaths world wide are due to unhealthy food choices. I would also argue that people who go on vacations and ski trips would not characterized eating Pizza as entertainment. Poor people have no other source of entertainment but junk food. I know plenty of upper-class obese educated people who don't eat junk food. We are talking about junk food.
People on ski trips? They sure as heck do eat Pizza, and big greasy burgers and they drink lots of beer. But if you want to witness gluttony, go on a cruise sometime and watch what people eat. Unless they some how won a ticket, there aren't poor people there, but they eat like flipping pigs at a trough it's thoroughly disgusting- I refuse to take cruises for that reason it's just a floating vehicle used to slop the hogs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 12:53 PM
 
38,213 posts, read 14,924,927 times
Reputation: 24624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
People - not just poor people, mind - eat junk food for comfort. Being poor is difficult, and is made deliberately more difficult by rules, laws, necessary concessions the poor make (buying cheap rather than quality, etc.). Miserable, depressed people eat more fat, salt, sugar, carb combos like chips, cookies, and ice cream.



No, it's not healthy, but better to castigate and legislate a human reaction than to help improve that human's existence, am I right?
The purpose of SNAP is not to provide junk food to comfort miserable, depressed people.

The purpose is to provide supplemental nutrition. In fact, that's the name of the program -- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Nobody is castigating or legislating that folks can't buy junk food with their Disability check, or their paycheck from Walmart, or McDonalds. They are free to spend their own money on that if the so desire.

IMO, SNAP should be for be used for food that provides nutrition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 01:07 PM
 
6,657 posts, read 6,831,541 times
Reputation: 10046
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
The purpose of SNAP is not to provide junk food to comfort miserable, depressed people.

The purpose is to provide supplemental nutrition. In fact, that's the name of the program -- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Nobody is castigating or legislating that folks can't buy junk food with their Disability check, or their paycheck from Walmart, or McDonalds. They are free to spend their own money on that if the so desire.

IMO, SNAP should be for be used for food that provides nutrition.

It is to provide a portion of what a family spends on food items. SNAP gives you up to 70% of the thrifty level of food budget. The other 30% (or more) is up to you. Most people do NOT receive the maximum.


The government does not specify what you can and cannot buy, except that it be food, and not hot or food prepared specifically for you. It also does not specify that you have to make good choices - a learned behavior, by the way. And it does not specify that you eat nutritional gruel every day so that you don't accidentally take pleasure in eating. Poverty is not a bleeping moral failure, unless you're counting the morals of those who pay poverty-level wages to their employees.



Also, just because you might use a few SNAP dollars on chips or whatever because you're having a crap day (or life) doesn't mean you aren't buying salad fixings with your own money when the SNAP money runs out. In the case of several people I know, the SNAP money is $16-$40 a month.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 01:19 PM
 
12,123 posts, read 6,694,805 times
Reputation: 12967
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
The purpose of SNAP is not to provide junk food to comfort miserable, depressed people.

The purpose is to provide supplemental nutrition. In fact, that's the name of the program -- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Nobody is castigating or legislating that folks can't buy junk food with their Disability check, or their paycheck from Walmart, or McDonalds. They are free to spend their own money on that if the so desire.

IMO, SNAP should be for be used for food that provides nutrition.
SNAP is just a renaming of the Food Stamp program. The word nutrition for this purpose just means food. It is rude and judgmental to assume those on food assistance are miserable and depressed. They have greater security than low income people who do not qualify for the program.

I would rather see the program ended than to treat the recipients like naughty children. Many of them work and live responsibly, policing their food choices wreaks of authoritarianism and infantilization. Yes they can spend their own money on subjective "forbidden" foods but some recipients are on a very strict budget and need to use their paycheck or disability check for rent and other necessities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 01:20 PM
 
66,524 posts, read 30,333,656 times
Reputation: 8675
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
You think the only people who use food as "entertainment" are the poor? 39.8% or 93.3 million of US adults are obese and the number is going up every year. 12.4% of the population (including children) rely on SNAP benefits so we have a bunch of people who don't fit into your theory, how do you explain that?
Typically, yes. There's a high correlation between low-income and obesity, especially among women.

Quote:
"From 19992002 to 20112014 the prevalence of obesity increased among women in the two lower income groups, but not among women living in households with incomes above 350% of FPL."

Figure 1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,081 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22137
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Typically, yes. There's a high correlation between low-income and obesity, especially among women.
Geezus what does that have to do with what I said? In 2016 39% of adults in the US were obese, that number is going up every year, there is no way that anyone would consider 39% of all adults to be poor. Obesity is not a disease of the poor as much as you would like to make everyone think it is:

If we look at people with income below 130 percent of the federal poverty level (which translates to $32,630 for a family of four), 39 percent of them are obese, vs. 41 percent for people with income between 130 percent and 350 percent of poverty level ($32,630 to $87,850). A two point difference isn't all that much but it sort of blows a hole in your theory. People with an income of over 350% of the poverty level had the lowest obesity rate at 31% but when you think about it, that's pretty disgusting - isn't it? That means that the people with expendable income and no SNAP benefits are eating large quantities of high calorie foods, and they should know better so that should be your target audience for finger wagging.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6650a1.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,081 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22137
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Typically, yes. There's a high correlation between low-income and obesity, especially among women.
people who earn 350% of the poverty level are NOT poor
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,383 posts, read 59,846,787 times
Reputation: 54028
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
The purpose is to provide supplemental nutrition. In fact, that's the name of the program -- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The purpose of SNAP is to bolster the markets for farmers' goods. And the food industry lobby is going to make sure that every molecule of high fructose corn syrup, ground corn, and refined wheat is going to be sold and consumed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 02:30 PM
 
66,524 posts, read 30,333,656 times
Reputation: 8675
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
people who earn 350% of the poverty level are NOT poor
Exactly, which is why women in that income range have a LOWER obesity rate than women with less income.

Can you NOT read the CDC's info or chart? Your post on this is like your insistence that 2010 was 12 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top